> Rich,
>
> To be as brief as possible: Footnote 5 shows the case was decided on the original understanding of the board members, and their original policy. Not on the legal strategy brought in by the lawyers for the defense.
>
> But, pardon my ignorance, perhaps you can tell us if the board, after listening to the lawyers, changed the school's policy to something else? Something actually about ID?
> About the wedge? Or was the latter only something they put in legal briefs?
>
> Can you quote us the original policy and the modified policy so as to show us the difference?

This would best be thrown to David Obderbeck but my reading is that neither the School Board's understanding or lack of understanding about ID nor was the defense's legal strategy relevant to the decision. What was decided was whether ID in and of itself failed the establishment clause based on Supreme Court precedent. Judge Jones not being an activist judge used the Supreme Court precedent in Edwards which also ignored what the Arkansas board did and did not know about Scientific Creationism.

As a practical matter it is my understanding that TDI was begging Dover not to teach ID but they failed to heed what in retrospect was very wise advise. This is the danger in a nutshell of the big tent between ID and YEC. What ID is intending to say and what YEC hears are very, very different. What YEC hears is evolution is wrong and NOTHING is right about it and since ID claims to be scientific it should be taught in the classroom NOW. What ID has failed to warn clearly -- maybe they have to us but definitely not to their YEC allies -- is that in their plan they've slipped their schedule on Phase I and the science isn't there yet.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 25 00:38:11 2009